Jury Finds for C.R. Bard in PowerPort Case
A federal jury in Arizona sided with the medical device maker in the third bellwether trial of the multidistrict PowerPort litigation.
Updated on Nov. 12, 2026 in Stroke
A federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued a defense verdict for C.R. Bard on Oct. 29 in a bellwether case over its PowerPort implantable port catheter. The jury rejected claims of strict liability, negligent design defect and fraudulent concealment.
Why it matters
The verdict is the third bellwether result in the multidistrict PowerPort litigation and follows an earlier defense verdict in Cook v. C.R. Bard. Outcomes in bellwether trials are closely watched because they can shape how remaining cases in the litigation are valued and resolved.
The verdict is a jury finding in a federal bellwether trial, with the jury finding the PowerPort device unavoidably unsafe and therefore not defective on all three claims. Post-verdict motions and any appeal have not been described in the available reporting.
The players
C.R. Bard
C.R. Bard is a medical device manufacturer that makes implantable vascular access devices, and it is the defendant in the multidistrict PowerPort litigation.
The details
Judge David G. Campbell presided over the trial, in which the jury found the PowerPort device was unavoidably unsafe and not defective. The jury ruled for C.R. Bard on strict liability, negligent design defect and fraudulent concealment claims.
Timeline
Oct. 29, 2026: Jury issues defense verdict in the Arizona bellwether trial.
Big Picture
The Arizona verdict extends a pattern begun in Cook v. C.R. Bard, where the first PowerPort bellwether also ended in a defense verdict. The result adds a third bellwether data point to the multidistrict litigation.
Patients with implanted PowerPort devices are not directly affected by the verdict's legal outcome, which concerns liability rather than clinical use. Anyone with questions about their own device should consult their treating physician.
The takeaway
Jury verdicts in bellwether trials offer an early signal about how multidistrict product litigation may proceed, though each case turns on its own evidence. Readers tracking medical device litigation should watch subsequent trial outcomes and post-verdict rulings.
Further reading
For related coverage, see Stroke reporting on the Phoenix health beat.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Harrismartin.
